There’s a new monkey in my house and he’s riding my back. Rodinal’s his name and film developing’s his game.

My reference to Rodinol as “new” is slightly inaccurate since it’s been a darkroom standard since the 19th century. It was one of the first products sold by AGFA, and it remained in AGFA’s catalog until a few years ago, when various corporate acquisitions, mergers and spin-offs spun Rodinal right into oblivion. Fortunately, AGFA’s 1891 patent has long expired, and a handful of other manufacturers are now bottling the stuff under all manner of alternative names.

So my new monkey isn’t really new — he’s just new to me. And his name isn’t really Rodinal, it’s “Blazinal.” But it’s all just semantics because, new or old, Rodinal or Blazinal, I’ve got a serious jones for the stuff.

Rodinal, for the edification of those who think “megapixels” when they think “cameras,” is a high-acutance film developer. Basically, this means it produces sharp negatives with pronounced micro-contrast, but at the expense of a very prominent and conspicuous grain. If that sounds like gibberish to those of you accustom to a CMOS-to-SD workflow, please partake in the following paragraph:

Film is coated with silver halide crystals, which are highly sensitive to light. Once the film is shot, any exposed crystals will turn black when dunked into a developer. Following development, the film is immersed in a fixer, which washes away all the unexposed silver halide leaving only the exposed, black crystals behind (thus creating a negative image). These crystals are what’s known as “grain.” Of course, nothing’s new under the sun so, like today’s photographers who obsess over minimizing digital sensor noise, film photographers were forever trying to reduce the visibility of those crystalline grains. That’s why, over the course of the 20th century, solvent-based developers (like Kodak D-76) supplanted the popularity of high-acutance developers (like Rodinal). Solvent developers contain agents that actually dissolve some of the blackened silver crystals, softening the “edge” effect of the little granular clumps and thus minimizing their appearance. These so-called “fine grain” developers produce a smoother image, but at the expense of sharpness and micro-contrast.

Flash forward to 2012. Thanks to an ill-advised experiment in false economy, I now find myself with numerous rolls of color medium format film — all frugally purchased long-ago from expired stock. But since my home is equipped only for black & white developing, I would actually need to send these negatives to a lab that had medium format C-41 processing capabilities — thus completely negating my rationale for pinching pennies on expired film. Since color rarely plays an important role in my photography, I decided to save some cash and develop those color negatives in black & white chemistry. I knew, if I dropped that color film into a 1:100 solution of Rodinal for 60 minutes, then I’d have a perfectly scannable B&W negative. So I picked up a bottle of Blazinal from my local camera shop, rolled up my sleeves and commandeered the kitchen sink in a bloodless coup.

Via a glitch in the internet’s time/space continuum, those early Rodinal experiments will appear in an article titled “A Derelict Memory Lane,” which was written prior to this article, but which will appear later in time.

Suffice to say that the experiment was a success. And, as a bonus, I now had a nice big jug of Rodinal to play around with. Truth be told, I was never all that happy with my current developer, Ilfotec DD-X. While it does seem well-suited to tabular grain films, like Ilford’s own Delta series, I usually prefer the traditional, organically-grained films like Tri-X. Back in my early (pre-digital) days, I often developed Tri-X with D-76, which I still prefer but which never achieved quite the look I wanted. Here, in the 21st century, I no longer shoot enough film to counteract the short shelf-life of an opened jug of D-76. So, with DD-X readily available and sporting respectable longevity, it became my developer by default. But what I wanted was grain. Yes, grain. If I want my photos to be polite, I’ll shoot digital. When I want peppery bits of impudence, I’ll opt for Tri-X. But, try as I might, I never could get a well-defined grain structure from either DD-X or D-76.

So, after finishing a recent roll of Tri-X, I dropped it in a 1:35 solution of that newly purchased Rodinal clone and followed the recipe outlined in The Massive Dev Chart’siPhone app. The result? Exactly the type of negatives I’d been longing for: sharp and with a full (yet scannable) tonal range; high micro-contrast; and crunchy, beautiful grain. In short, Rodinal gives me exactly that ineffable tonality and graininess that I want from film.

This past weekend, high on Rodinal, I took three cameras to Vancouver’s 420 pot protest to photograph others who shared my euphoric mood (albeit courtesy of a different chemical substance). Two of the cameras contained 35mm Tri-X, which I developed in a 1:35 solution. The third camera contained Fuji 160c color film, which I stand-developed at 1:100. While the photos might be somewhat lacking in compelling content, I have nothing but admiration for the Rodinal. In spite of some extremely contrasty lighting conditions — sometimes shooting directly into the sun — plus some schizophrenic exposure choices on my part, every single negative is scannable, printable and full of the tonal characteristics I desire.

I can hardly wait to blow through the bricks of Tri-X currently in my fridge. There are so many things to try: push-processing night shots; different dilutions; and, once the Tri-X runs out, alternate film stocks. While my dissatisfaction with the tonality and dynamic range of digital motivated my return to film a couple years ago, my film use remained “casual” at best. Now, my “discovery” of Rodinal (albeit 120 years late) has kindled that re-engagement with a vengeance. I suspect it’ll be some time before the kitchen sink returns to its usual food-preparation responsibilities.

ABOUT THESE PHOTOS: “Imbibing Fee” and “Ladies Imbibe” were shot with a Leica M2 and a v4 35mm Summicron lens on Tri-X at ISO 400, developed 1:35 in Blazinal. “Imiber’s Incline” was shot with a Fuji GA645 on 160C color film, which was stand-developed 1:100 in Blazinal. “Darth Imbibes” and “The Dude Imbibes” were shot with a Leica M6TTL and a 28mm Summicron lens on Tri-X at ISO 400, developed 1:35 in Blazinal. “Lovers Imbibe” was shot with a Leica M2 and a Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Super Wide Heliar lens on Tri-X at ISO 400, developed 1:35 in Blazinal.

Additional photos from the 420 protest, all developed in Rodinal, can be found on ULTRAsomething’s “Bonus Content” page for 2012.

If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.

Comments

Great article. I’d never considered dunking colour film in Rodinal before. I’ll have to give it a try…

… but Tri-X and Rodinal don’t make a very good push combination. Anything beyond 800 tends to turn to mud, in my experience. By all means try it; if you obtain better results I’d like to hear what you did differently.

Incidentally, I have heard vicious rumours that 1:100 stand development will even develop Kodachrome. I think if it’s even vaguely photosensitive, Rodinal will develop it.

It’s funny you bring up Rodinal – I just realized that a couple of weeks ago that it has been consistently part of my photographic life on a regular basis longer than just about any other product or device. The only other product that comes close (actually it’s a tie) is Kodak TRI-X. I have used Rodinal since the very very beginning of my photographic endeavors as well as today (actually I use R09 sourced via Freestyle). I have never used Rodinal exclusively as some sort of zealot and there have been periods where I used other developers more frequently in a particular year but I don’t think a year has gone by in the last 30 that I have NOT used Rodinal on at least one small project.

I figured this out while scanning never before digitized negatives for a personal project over the last couple of weeks. I am making a retrospective video for my daughter #2’s graduation party when I realized that Rodinal has always been a part of my photography. I don’t think there is a film I have ever used that I have not souped in Rodinal at least a few times for various reasons. I was shocked at how many of my negatives/contact sheets were actually developed with Rodinal since I don’t consider myself a “rodinal guy”. I do lament the passing of a particular favorite film that I ALWAYS developed in Rodinal… APX 100. That film was magical with Rodinal – In fact I only developed a few rolls of it ever in any other developer as calibration tests… Even with the same exact CI APX100 just looked so so good in the upper mid-tones with Rodinal that I could never “see” it any other way. Here is a post I put up the same day I was scanning APX negatives…

The first image in the post was Rodinal and APX 100 developed 1+50. I used this Combo for personal work as well as a heck of a lot of commercial fashion work where was “allowed” to shoot B+W. It had an subtle beauty to the upper mid-tone gradation that was amazingly flattering to young women (IMHO)… Enough reminiscing.

There are a couple of thought processes that I would like to comment on that you are propagating in your post that I just cannot let go unchallenged. Please take no offense to this as it is just one guy’s opinion that has been using Rodinal or Rodinal formulas since the late 70’s. In no particular order consider the following.

1) Rodinal is NOT a particularly “grainy” developer. It doesn’t knock the edges off the grain like “fine grain developers” but there really are not a whole lot of them available or in use today. Rodinal can behave similarly to D76 or even more like HC110 at higher dilutions – i.e. D76 mixed 1+3 or HC100 mixed 1+50 and used one shot is not a world apart from Rodinal 1+50. Graininess varies in a big way depending on dilution and process particulars like most developers. (by the way scanned and digitally resized negatives will ALWAYS show more apparent grain than optical prints for many reasons) Other factors include the PH of the entire dev process – water vs acid stop bath – alkaline vs acid fixer, etc, etc.

2) Rodinal is also sort of the middle of the road in terms of acutance – specifically it does not produce extremely pronounced mackie lines like dilute Pyrocat HD or other similar developers do. (Mackie lines are border or adjacency effects that happen with light/dark areas on film that are very similar to what sharpening does in digital processes – I didn’t use the term “unsharp mask” because that basic technique was actually developed on film).

3) Rodinal + TRI-X can produce fantastically beautiful images – thought I would mention this because common mob mentality is that it is not a good combo.

Ps. TRI-X has not be a grainy film by any measure since the 70’s. Really the idiotic “simulations” are so over done it’s not funny. In fact I can develop TMAX 3200 so it looks less grainy in PMK than most of the shots that people identify with “TRI-X”. Here is a sample of what I mean in a piece that I wrote for keep film alive….

I am very late to this discussion but thanks for those lovely examples. I’m impressed with the stand dev of the Fuji colour film… and very tempted to try with either some Kodak Gold 200, or one or other of the Fuji C200 variants (Easypix or whatever I can get my hands on).

The results with Tri-X are gorgeous too. Since I have a few rolls of the soon-to-be-dearly-departed Arista Premium 400 (=Tri-X) available, I’m tempted to try that, too.

Thanks again. The tonality in your scans is lovely, particularly “Lovers Imbibe” which absolutely jumped off the screen at me.

Three years late to the discussion? That’s nothing. I was 121 years late to the practice of using Rodinal to develop film! Now that’s embarrassing. Though, in my defense, I wasn’t actually alive for a few of those 121 years…